Meta’s move to end fact-checking spurring shift to mainstream sites

PETALING JAYA: Tech giant Meta Platforms Inc’s decision to scrap fact-checking has prompted social media users and parents to be more cautious, driving them toward credible and established sources for information.

Business development executive Christina Lopez, 46, said despite Meta’s move, it will unlikely change her social media habits, including on Facebook.

ALSO READ: Mainstream media poised for bigger role in combating misinformation

“I will still binge, but I will be extra careful with links, videos or content that involves news or opinions,” she said yesterday.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, announced on Jan 7 that it would replace its fact-checkers with a user-based “community notes” system to flag inaccurate posts, much like that on X, formerly Twitter.

Launched in 2016, Meta’s fact-checking system identified hoaxes via staff and technology that flagged posts likely to contain misinformation.

Fact-checkers verified and rated these posts, issuing warnings for false content and limiting its visibility.

ALSO READ: Meta’s end to fact-checking will be felt, but not so much in Malaysia, says Fahmi

Users who have shared misleading posts receive a notification providing them with a link to the fact-check article.

Corrections by authors lifted the restrictions.

On Jan 8, Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil said Meta’s move to remove independent fact-checking on its platforms would have implications but would not immediately affect Malaysian users.

“At the moment, I don’t see it affecting the Malaysian market, only the United States,” he said, referring to Meta’s initial implementation of the move over the next few months.

Meta said the rollback is starting in the United States but does not apply to other countries “at this time.” However, it has since announced several layoffs.

Lopez, who is an avid content consumer, said she spends hours mostly on Facebook watching videos and reading articles on topics to her liking.

“At times, I’ll check who the content creator is and whether or not they posted similar content in the past.

ALSO READ: Meta is following X's playbook on fact-checking. Here's what it means for you

“However, I will also continue to only trust established and credible sources,” she said, referring to mainstream media and established news portals.

Hamidah Ahmad, 45, a homemaker and a mother of two, expressed concern over Meta’s move, saying that it might lead to the spread of fake news.

“I will remind my kids to not blindly take social media content at face value and to always verify what they find online by cross-referencing with other sources.

“As a parent, I am really wary of clickbait articles because children don’t understand what they are. If there is no gatekeeping, it will open the way to predators and scammers targeting vulnerable groups.

“Also, you do not want your teenagers to be radicalised or influenced by fake content.

“As such, I will never allow social media use for my kid until he is more mature and understands how the world works,” said Hamidah.

Businessman J. Yumnesh, 37, appeared unfazed by the changes, saying that he was unsure if it has any impact on Malaysians.

“Does this mean it applies to our country?

“If it happens, perhaps we will have more freedom to get more information. Whatever it is, in terms of news or information, I will go to a trusted news website or go to any search engine to validate the truth,” he said.

Content Forum chief executive officer Mediha Mahmood said Meta’s move to shift from third-party fact-checking to a community-based approach indicates the evolving complexities of addressing misinformation in the digital space.

“Misinformation or disinformation is a growing challenge, particularly during elections, where false narratives can erode trust and divide communities.

“It is vital for platforms to strike a balance between promoting free expression and providing users with the tools to navigate the online world responsibly.”

Source link

Mainstream media poised for bigger role in combating misinformation

PETALING JAYA: Meta Platforms Inc’s decision to remove its fact-checking initiative in the United States has sparked concern among political and cybersecurity experts over the spread of disinformation and polarisation in Malaysia, especially during elections.

KRA Group director of strategy Amir Fareed Rahim highlighted the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2025, which identifies misinformation and disinformation as top short-term threats.

“If social media platforms won’t proactively address fake news, everyone must be more vigilant.

“Mainstream media can play a bigger role in fact-checking and debunking fake news,” he said yesterday.

The Star, for example, has its QuickCheck and True or Not sections that debunk fake news and viral content.

Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil acknowledged Meta’s move on Jan 8.

The firm is also in the final stages of securing an Application Service Provider (ASP) Class Licence in Malaysia.

Amir Fareed said that incorrect stories were spread across multiple countries and regions during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“However, it must also be acknowledged that even the best and most stringent social media fact-checking will not help in countries where trust in public institutions is or has been damaged, or where social polarisation has been allowed to fester.

“Ultimately, the responsibility to maintain social cohesion and credibility rests with governments and institutions.

“The task will get more difficult, but it is still fundamentally their responsibility,” Amir Fareed said, adding that misinformation could be prevalent in the upcoming Sabah and Melaka state elections this year.

Fong Choong Fook, the executive chairman of cybersecurity consulting company LGMS Bhd, said Malaysia perhaps needs a fraud verification unit to combat online scams, which he views as a more critical issue compared with political misinformation in the United States.

“Social media platforms aren’t doing enough to protect users from false advertising on Facebook and other platforms that are used by scammers.

“Users must be wary, especially when AI (artificial intelligence) is now being used to generate false advertising,” said Fong.

He added that disinformation is a global trend, considering that most users rely on the convenience of social media.

This has also led to users easily believing that whatever is posted online is true, which has also conditioned them to trust content without verification.

While there are concerns that Meta’s move could affect the upcoming Sabah election this year, political pundit Dr Tunku Mohar Tunku Mohd Mokhtar of International Islamic University Malaysia said the social media giant’s decision to remove its fact-checking unit would not affect Malaysia that much.

He said that during elections, disinformation often becomes a campaign strategy, as seen in Sabah in the past.

“The danger is when such disinformation spreads, gullible people would believe it, and it is difficult to rectify the situation,” he added.

Tunku Mohar said Facebook and other social media platforms are “democratic” in the sense that people are free to air their views without much restriction.

He said social media platforms provided “credibility” even to unverified news.

In Malaysia’s context, he said fact-checking mechanisms can exist outside of social media platforms to help users verify the truth.

“The government can rely on existing laws, but by the time the due process is completed, the damage is already done.

“In that sense, social media platforms should also be proactively involved to ensure that their platforms aren’t used for ‘black propaganda’,” he added.

Source link

Related stories:

Meta is following X's playbook on fact-checking. Here's what it means for you

Meta’s end to fact-checking will be felt, but not so much in Malaysia, says Fahmi

Indonesia’s fact-checkers slam Meta’s decision to end US fact-checking programme

Meta's 'Community Notes' model will not apply to paid ads

How Indian media fabricates think tanks, journalists to churn out anti-China, Pakistan news

A reporter holds a microphone with the logo of ANI during a press conference in India, on March 3, 2023. Photo: VCG 

 

Source: EU DisinfoLab report.Graphic: Global Times

 

A recent report by a European organization investigating fake narratives of Indian media went viral on Chinese social media platforms recently, drawing wide attention to India's supposedly vast smear campaign against China and Pakistan.

Following reports in 2019 and 2020, the latest investigation report by independent non-profit organization EU DisinfoLab, published in February 2023, exposes more details and evidences to prove that Asian News International (ANI), an Indian news agency, has been quoting a number of non-existent organizations, journalists and bloggers to spread disinformation that attacks and smears China and Pakistan. The report further uncovered that India has long been building a huge anti-China and anti-Pakistan disinformation network and that Indian media outlets have built a sophisticated assembly line of fake anti-China and anti-Pakistan news.

On the one hand, the Indian media produces and spreads false narratives about China, and the Indian government restricts Chinese journalists' access to India and deny their rights of reporting a real India, by treating Chinese journalists in an unfair and discriminatory manner during their posting in India and visa application process.

Chinese experts said the investigation report exposes a deliberate effort by India or Indian media to shape negative narratives against China and Pakistan. The presence of such disinformation campaign aligns with India's strained relations with both countries. They pointed out that the production of fake news by Indian media can incite nationalist sentiment within the country and distract people from the real problems of the country and the poor performance of its government.

Within the complex geopolitical context of South Asia, such disinformation campaigns can have far-reaching consequences, which can exacerbate tensions, strain diplomatic relations, and hinder regional cooperation efforts, observers warned.

Bad sources

The investigation report titled "Bad Sources - How Indian news agency ANI quoted sources that do not exist," published by EU DisinfoLab, unveils "its latest investigation into anti-Pakistan/China influence operations," according to the organization.

The report said ANI is an Indian news agency that plays a relevant role in the country's information ecosystem, providing content for many well-established media across India, such as The Print and Business Standard. With this network, ANI acts as a purveyor of news to millions of Indians.

In the report, researchers write that ANI has been repeatedly quoting articles and reports issued by a think tank named the International Forum for Rights and Security (IFFRAS). The think tank was previously chaired by Mario Silva, a former Canadian Member of Parliament (MP), and dissolved in 2014, according to public information provided on a Canadian government website.

However, when they checked IFFRAS' official website, the researchers found that it has kept updating information, including articles, news, books and even conferences, and that ANI has kept quoting information from the think tank's website.

For example, on December 27, 2022, IFFRAS published an article titled "Pakistan's persecution of minorities under scanner again," and on the same day, the article was quoted by ANI in a piece of news headlined "Pakistan's ill-treatment of minorities under scanner after UK sanctions Sindhi cleric," with most of the contents coming from the IFFRAS article.

ANI has quoted IFFRAS more than 200 times from May 2021 to January 2023, and "in most instances, it was not only quoting but using the IFFRAS 'reports' as the backbone of the articles," said the report.

News reports produced by ANI quoting IFFRAS can possibly get republished or reported on by other media outlets. For example, in April 14, 2022, an ANI report quoting IFFRAS was reproduced by The Statesman, an Indian daily newspaper, allowing the ANI report to reach a wider audience.

In addition, researchers of EU DisinfoLab further investigated whether the conference attendees at the think tank quoted in the articles actually exist.

To find out who was attending conferences held by IFFRAS, researchers contacted attendees of a session discussing the "Increasing presence of Muslim Brotherhood." But two of the attendees mentioned by IFFRAS responded that they had never attended such a conference and that the Muslim Brotherhood "had nothing (to do) with their field of expertise."

The investigation report also pointed out that more than 70 speakers mentioned in the fake conferences of IFFRAS did not exist at all.

Another interesting finding is that, in contrast to the frequent updates on its website, IFFRAS' Twitter account has not posted any content since 2021. Therefore, the researchers assumed that "the sole purpose of IFFRAS is to produce content that can be covered by ANI and then republished widely throughout the Indian press."

ANI's editor Smita Prakash responded to the report on Twitter on February 24, dubbing it "defamatory and false."

The Global Times has tried to contact ANI through the email address provided on its website, wanting to get a response on whether the news agency was aware that IFFRAS had been disbanded in 2014 and does not exist now. However, as of the publication of this report, there was no response from ANI.

Apart from IFFRAS, the researchers also looked into another think tank frequently quoted by ANI, the Policy Research Group (POREG), in which the researchers found no sign of the existence of three new members who had reportedly joined the group in the last two years.

For example, one of them is James Duglous Crickton, a misspelling of James Douglas Crickton, who wrote an article claiming that former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf held a secret bank account in Switzerland, which was later covered by ANI.

The researchers said that they have tried to get in touch with the three people through POREG, but have received no response. However, the three people had been quoted by ANI numerous times on topics such as Pakistan's army doctrines and China's "wolf warrior diplomacy," according to the investigation report.

The researchers also tried to get contact with Philippe Jeune, a claimed "Paris-based investigative journo with more than 10 years' experience" and sometimes a claimed "Brussels-based freelance journalist," who was quoted by ANI in a piece of news entitled "European Parliament to withdraw Pakistan's GSP+ status over abuse of blasphemy laws" - a withdrawal that did not happen, and efforts to do so again failed.

Asif Noor, founder of the Friends of BRI Forum, a Pakistan-based think tank, told the Global Times that in the investigation, ANI has been found to quote non-existent organizations, presenting them as credible sources of information. The expert noted that by attributing statements and opinions to these fictional entities, ANI creates a false impression of legitimacy and credibility for the disinformation being spread.

These fabricated figures are used as experts to provide opinions and analysis to further mislead readers and reinforce the false narratives. ANI's articles, containing the disseminated disinformation, are reproduced and shared across various well-established media outlets in India, Asif noted. "This amplification of the false narratives through multiple platforms increases their reach and potential impact, potentially influencing a wider audience and shaping public opinion."



Source: EU DisinfoLab report.Graphic: Global Times

Vast network

The IFFRAS think tank mentioned in the lab report was also found to be linked to the Srivastava Group, as the researchers found that IFFRAS has been registered by using a well-known email address from the Srivastava Group.

The latter is a notorious Indian shell corporation, and the EU DisinfoLab pointed out in its 2020 report that nominally, the group's main business is news media, with offices in Brussels and Geneva, and registrations of more than 750 media, think tanks and more than 550 domain names in 116 countries and regions around the world.

However, the researchers investigated and found that there was no profitable business under the Srivastava Group, and the media and think tanks related to the group basically only had a name but no actual business. For example, the researchers uncovered EU Chronicle, a fake media with fake journalists supposedly covering European affairs, which was actually serving as a platform for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to sign pro-Indian articles.

In fact, the group is a representative of the disinformation war launched by India against China. Under the lead of the Srivastava Group, which is based overseas in Geneva and Brussels, an information warfare network has been woven, with a number of fake media, think tanks and NGOs all over the world.

The fake news produced by the fake media under the group is also published and reprinted by some Indian media websites such as ANI which increases the reach of the disinformation.

For example, on September 17, 2020, an article was published in the EU Chronicle about a letter sent by several MEPs to the President of the European Council Charles Michel, asking for taking strong actions on China's Human Rights atrocities at the EU-China Summit. The article was titled "Meaningful address and strong action needed against China's human rights atrocities." In its coverage of the news, ANI changed the headline as "Members of the European Parliament urge EU to take strong action on China for Human Rights Violation." But then the coverage of ANI was distorted by the Srivastava Group's other fake media, which ran it under the headline: "EU to take strong action on China."

In the end, a simple request by individual MEPs, who are free to send any letter they want to send, was ultimately presented as an official position of the EU on China.

Represented by the EU Chronicle, fake media of India published a large number of discrediting articles on China and Pakistan in an attempt to damage the reputation of the countries internationally and win more support for India from institutions such as the EU and UN.

In addition, according to the lab's investigation, under India's vast network of fake narratives, many organizations created by the group are active in cities which host headquarters of international organizations, such as Geneva, Brussels and New York. These organizations include "South Asia Peace Forum," the "Baloch Forum" and "Friends of Gilgit-Baltistan."

In order to increase the official element and credibility of their organizations, they even paid some MEPs to make pro-India, anti-Pakistan and anti-China remarks, and organized trips for MEPs to Kashmir, Bangladesh and the Maldives. The researchers noted that "some of these trips led to much institutional controversy, as the delegations of MEPs were often presented as official EU delegations when they were in fact not travelling on behalf of the Parliament."

Responsible dissemination of accurate and verified information is crucial in fostering informed public discourse and upholding journalistic ethics, Asif noted. But India lacks the ability and is using it in favor of its own motivations, the expert said.

Beautify image

Experts noted that China and Pakistan have long been targets of India's disinformation campaign.

Topics related to the China-India border region, including the China-India border issue and China's border negotiation with Bhutan, are a major focus of the India's fabrication and smearing on China.

In addition, discrediting China's Belt and Road Initiative and the construction of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, and smearing on China's policies in Xinjiang and Xizang regions in terms of ethnic, religious, human rights and other issues are also the top agenda items set by some forces in India in the disinformation war against China, Sun Xihui, an associate research fellow with the National Institute of International Strategy at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times.

With the help of these fake reports, the Indian media not only discredit China, but also try to raise the image of its own government in its community. By building the image of China with social chaos and oppression of people domestically, and deceiving internationally, the India media aimed to beautify India's image of democracy at home and friendship with its neighbors internationally, Sun noted.

The international community's perception of Pakistan and China may be swayed by the misinformation disseminated by India, affecting how these nations are viewed in terms of their policies, actions, and intentions. This can lead to biased judgments and misconceptions about Pakistan and China's contributions to regional and global affairs, Asif said.

To counter false narrative campaigns of India, experts noted that there should be a multifaceted approach involving various strategies. "It is important that China and Pakistan should promote media literacy to educate the public about identifying and evaluating misinformation and disinformation," Asif said.

"Citizens should also utilize social media platforms, official websites, and other digital channels to directly communicate with global audiences," said the expert.

Gary Machado, managing director of EU DisinfoLab, said he thought the muted reaction to the revelation of the disinformation network was partly because it was "clearly managed by Indian stakeholders."

"Imagine if the same operation was run by China or Russia. How do you think the world would have reacted? Probably with international outrage, leading to public inquiries and probably sanctions," he told BBC in an interview in December 2022. 

Source link

 

RELATED ARTICLES

 

Ridiculous fake news by Indian media might be created under govt support: observer

 Several Indian media outlets have become a global joke for publishing fake news claiming "Pakistan is invading Afghanistan ...

 

 

 Relatedv posts:

 

How Fake News Shapes World Order: Atrocity Fabrication and its Consequences

 

Checkmated over Ukraine; Is Ukraine a metaverse nightmare?

 Cornered: Ukrainian armoured vehicles blocking a street in Kyiv as Russian troops stormed toward Ukraine’s capital on Saturday. – AP Nato's actions have made it's Western allies incapable of doing better for Ukraine than Ukraine can do its own relations with Russia

WHEN the wilfully unstoppable force of Nato expansion hits the steadfastly immovable object of Russian national security, war erupts.
`
By February 24 when Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Moscow’s challenges became exposed and grew more acute.
`
Russia cannot hold Ukraine in any sense as resentment to its incursion swells. There can be no assurance Russia can succeed in whatever it seeks to do to Kiev.
`
As in all military interventions, moving in is always easier than pulling out – which must eventually happen. And then what?
`
All disputes must conclude in negotiations, especially between neighbours, and it is now harder to negotiate. Meanwhile Russia is cast as the sole villain, so an invasion could not have been its preferred option.
`
As a power play it is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions and superpower dimensions. Ukraine and Nato may have top billing but the US and Russia are the key actors.
`
The 1947 Dunkirk Treaty between Britain and France was a contingency agreement against German or Soviet aggression. This grew to include the Benelux countries and then the US and six others to become today’s North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
`
By 1955 Nato expanded to include WWII foe Germany, leaving the Soviet Union out in the cold. Moscow then established its Warsaw Pact alliance in trying to achieve some balance.
`
Since then, Moscow stayed in Nato’s sights on the other side of the fence. Nato’s first Secretary-General Hastings Ismay described its role as “keeping the US in, Germany down, and Russia out.”
`
Nato is a Cold War device that was not dismantled after the Cold War but has instead grown. But the official rhetoric in the early 1990s was of consolidation with a few contemplating dissolution.
`
As the Soviet Union was collapsing in 1991, Nato officials from the US, Britain, France and Germany repeatedly assured Moscow that Nato would not expand. Nato had become the most serious organised challenge to Russian national security.
`
US Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Seitz said expansion of membership would not happen “either officially or unofficially.” His British counterpart added that expansion was “unacceptable”.
`
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher agreed and said so. Then Nato’s expansion happened.
`
When Russia complained, Nato stalwarts said any agreement was only verbal and not written down, implying that what they said could not be trusted. Later Nato claimed there had not even been a verbal agreement.
`
Earlier this month Germany’s Der Spiegel newspaper reported that Prof Joshua Shifrinson of Boston University had found a declassified document confirming that a pledge on Nato’s non-expansion had been made. Elsewhere it is reported that President Bill Clinton broke that pledge.
`
In 1999, Nato expanded by including former Soviet bloc countries Poland, Hungary and Czechia. Russia seethed but could do little.
`
In 2004, Nato expanded further by admitting former Soviet republics Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Russia complained again but once more its security concerns were ignored.
`
As Nato missiles aimed at Russia moved closer to its borders, Moscow protested but Nato said they were only there because of Iran. Russia was unconvinced.
`
After Ukraine’s independence its government continued friendly relations with Russia. But the US engineered the 2004-05 Orange Revolution that toppled the government and replaced it with one closer to the West.
`
France and Germany invaded Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries with each attack ending in disaster. Napoleon’s and Hitler’s forces nonetheless made damaging incursions into the Russian heartland and national psyche.
`
Today France and Germany are among European nations careful in managing relations with Russia. However, a US-led Nato with less experience and less sensitivity to Russian security concerns has acted with less care.
`
Russia remains the world’s largest country by area rich in natural resources like oil and gas. It is not a threat to Europe or even Ukraine if agreements made can be honoured, but provoking it can produce a different result.
`
Using Nato to challenge and undermine Russian interests will not end well for anyone. US interests are protected with the Atlantic Ocean as buffer, but European members of Nato share a continent with Russia and would have different priorities.
`
The UN wants Russian forces to withdraw from Ukraine and return to base almost as much as Russia wants Nato to withdraw from its eastward momentum and return to the 1997 Nato-Russia Founding Act. Although neither may happen soon, Moscow has no interest or expressed desire to occupy Ukraine so the former is more likely than the latter.
`
Ukraine for now is trapped in a vicious cycle of violence and disintegration beyond its control. It is a familiar plight of pawns caught between incompatible great powers.
`
Ukraine wants urgent negotiations with Russia while Russia wants Belarus to host talks on the Minsk accords for a ceasefire and phased measures towards a compromise. Even if talks are possible it will be an uphill task since Moscow and Kiev have different interpretations of the 2014-15 terms.
`
Among Biden’s errors is targeting Putin personally as if another Russian leader would have acted differently. Even Boris Yeltsin would have done the same over Ukraine, while a nationalist like Vladimir Zhirinovsky would have acted tougher and earlier.
`
For the West to dump the Nord Stream 2 deal supplying Europe with Russian gas punishes only Europe which now has to pay many times more for US supplies. On Feb 4 Russia signed a new US$117.5bil oil and gas deal to supply China instead.
`
Western observers worry that China may learn unsavoury lessons from Russia’s actions in Ukraine to further its disputed claims in Asia. Any lessons would be more akin to Nato’s gradual encroachment on Russian territory.
`
The apparent beneficiary from Ukraine’s crisis is China, being a distraction for the West which also increases Moscow’s dependence on Beijing. But China is also awkwardly positioned as it wants to maintain good ties with all parties.
`
The only unqualified beneficiary of the crisis is China-Russia relations, which must count as another major strategic blunder for Nato and the West.
`
Bunn Nagara is a political analyst and Honorary Research Fellow of the Perak Academy. The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.

By Bunn Nagara, Author at ISIS

Source link

 

Is Ukraine a metaverse nightmare?

`

The Russian pipe-laying ship 'Akademik Tscherski' which is on deployment for the further construction of the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea pipeline, is moored at the port of Mukran on the island of Ruegen, Germany, on Sept. 8, 2020. The gas is still flowing from Russian even as bullets and missiles fly in Ukraine. But the war is raising huge questions about the energy ties between Europe and Russia. The conflict is helping keep oil and gas prices high due to fears of a possible reduction in supplies, and consumers will continue to face financial stress from that. 

 

The real-life cost of war: People walk at the border crossing between Poland and Ukraine, in Medyka, Poland, on February 24, 2022. Photo: Reuters

 Moving from a unipolar world to a multipolar world was always likely to be messy and risk-prone. But few saw how fast we moved from beating war drums to actual armed conflict between the Great Powers, the latest being in Ukraine. Are we on a march of folly to World War III, or have key players lost sight of reality?

`Lest we forget, World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945) were fought to keep down rising powers—Germany and later Japan.
`
Russia and China suffered the most casualties in WWII, and both were allies against German Nazis and Japanese militarists.
`
The United States became the real winner, but decided after WWII to contain communism in both the Soviet Union (USSR) and China.
`
Fifty years ago, in 1972, US President Nixon set aside enmity against China, restored US-China relations, and in one strategic stroke, isolated the Soviet Union, leading to its collapse two decades later.
`
The great achievement during the Cold War was the avoidance of nuclear conflict, with the Cuban missile crisis being a live test of brinkmanship.
`
Both sides climbed down when the USSR removed missiles from Cuba, and the US quietly removed missiles from Turkey.
`
President Kennedy understood that grandstanding on moral issues should be restrained, because in a nuclear war, mutually assured destruction is madness.
`
After seven decades of peace, the Western media has been painting the multipolar world as a black-and-white conflict between good vs evil, democracy vs autocracy—without appreciating that the other side may have different points of view that need to be heard.
`
By definition, a multipolar world means that liberal democracies will have to live with different ideologies and regimes.
`
Today, YouTube and the Web provide a wealth of alternative views than mainstream media, such as CNN or BBC.
`
Prof John Mearsheimer, author of the influential book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," offers the insight that the Western expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) was the reason why Russia felt threatened.
`
The more the Nato allies try to arm Ukraine, the more insecure Russia gets.
`
In essence, Russia wants a buffer zone of neutral countries like Austria, which are not members of Nato, but that does not exclude trade with all sides.
`
Carnegie Moscow Center analyst Alexander Baunov described how "the two sides appear to be negotiating over different things.
`
Russia is talking about its own security, while the West is focusing on Ukraine's."
`
What he is describing are two sides that are each in their own social bubble or virtual reality (VR) Metaverse, deaf to the other side's views.
`
The term "Metaverse" came from a 1992 dystopian sci-fi novel titled "Snow Crash," where the Metaverse is the virtual refuge from an anarchic world controlled by the Mafia.
`
Today, Metaverse is an online virtual world where the user blends VR with the real, flesh-and-blood world through VR glasses and software augmented reality (AR).
`
In other words, in Metaverse, your mind is colonised by whatever algorithm and virtual information that you get—real or fake news.
`
Metaverse is escapism from reality, and will not help us solve real world problems, especially when we need to talk eyeball to eyeball.
`
The Metaverse designer is more interested in controlling or influencing our minds, feeding us what we want to hear or see, rather than what information we need to have to make good decisions. The risk is that we think VR conflict is costless, whereas real war has real flesh-and-blood costs.
`
.In short, the more we look inward at our own Metaverse, the more we neglect the collective costs to the world as it lurches from peace to war
`
Surprisingly, I found the right-wing influential Fox commentator Tucker Carlson asking better questions than CNN or BBC commentators.
`
In his show Tucker Carlson Tonight, in the segment "How will this conflict affect you?" he asked bluntly why Americans should hate Putin and what the war will cost every American.
`
Carlson asked some really serious questions, even though his views are partisan—have the Democrats, with their moral concern to hate Putin, forgotten the big picture of war costs?
`
First, would Americans be willing to go into a winter war with Russia?
`
Second, would they pay much higher gas prices as oil prices have already hit above USD 100 per barrel?
`
Although economic sanctions are applied, even Europe will not be willing to risk cutting off gas supplies from Russia, since Russia accounts for 35 percent of European gas supplies.
`
Third, is Ukraine a real democracy?
`
Carlson's 2018 book "Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution" is well worth reading to understand how conservative Americans think about elites who care about themselves more than society at large. 

Carlson asked some really serious questions, even though his views are partisan—have the Democrats, with their moral concern to hate Putin, forgotten the big picture of war costs?
`
First, would Americans be willing to go into a winter war with Russia?
`
Second, would they pay much higher gas prices as oil prices have already hit above USD 100 per barrel?
`
Although economic sanctions are applied, even Europe will not be willing to risk cutting off gas supplies from Russia, since Russia accounts for 35 percent of European gas supplies.
`
Third, is Ukraine a real democracy?
`
Carlson's 2018 book "Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution" is well worth reading to understand how conservative Americans think about elites who care about themselves more than society at large.
`
In sum, the decade of 2020s may face a tough period of escalating conflicts at local, regional and global levels, with proxy wars that disrupt each other's economies and social stability.
`
If states fail, and poor and hungry people migrate at a larger scale, even more border conflicts are likely, since most will want to go to the richer countries in the North, such as Europe and America.
`
There is no ideal world where everyone is good and the other side is bad.
`
In a multipolar world, there will be all kinds of people that we don't like, but we have to live with them.
`
A negotiated peace is better than mutual destruction.
`
In Metaverse, virtual life can be beautiful, moral and perfect, but the real world is lurching towards a collective nightmare.
`
We should not kid ourselves that the Metaverse VR of self-deception is the real world.
`
We either sleepwalk to war, or have the courage to opt for sustainable peace.
`
The real question is: Who is willing to climb down and eat the humble pie for the sake of peace?
`
By Andrew Sheng is adjunct professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing and the University of Malaya. He was formerly the chairman of the Securities and Futures Commission, Hong Kong. 

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng (born 1946) is Hong Kong-based Malaysian Chinese banker, academic and commentator. He started his career as an accountant and is now a distinguished fellow of Fung Global Institute, a global think tank based in Hong Kong.^[1] He served as chairman of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) before his replacement by Martin Wheatley in

Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own.

Source link

 

Related posts:

 

Russia ‘ready to talk’ after militarily paralyzing Ukraine in hours

 Black smoke rises from a military airport in Chuguyev near Kharkiv on February 24, 2022, after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a...

 

 

Moral vacuum at the heart of modernity, now embodied in US laws!

  ` ` MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change ...

 

American Bible versus Chinese Dao Dejing, What is the real crisis of global order?

 

Western concept of democracy lacks historical contexts, disrespect cultural difference, conquest by force, colonisation, slavery, genocide, human rights, doctrine of discovery embodied in their laws ! 

 

Malaysia must retool education, skills to adapt to knowledge economy

 

Can the great powers avoid war?

THE GLOCALISATION OF HUMANITY 

 

China calls for building a community for man and nature at US-held climate summit

Fake News and Hard Truths

Balanced views: The print house of the daily newspaper Le Monde in France. When print media and television dominated the distribution of information, media could be trusted to give a balanced view to enable the reader to judge what is correct. — AFP

We live in an information age, or more likely, a disinformation age.

Growing up in a world that worships technology and knowledge, we have now entered a phase when we no longer are able to trust what information we receive is fake news or not. Worse, we don’t know whether the provider of the information is trustworthy or not.

Fake news has many definitions. Basically, fake news are manufactured with an intent to mislead, damage someone or to attract attention to a cause, and gain either financially, politically or higher media attention. Such information could be outright sensational, partial, incomplete, provocative, false or fabricated, with some journalists even paying for leaks or gossips. Today’s fake news also include tampered photographs and videos, or encouraging people to “act” in front of the cameras.

Up until the 1970s, when print media and television dominated the distribution of information, media could be trusted to give balanced views, setting out different sides of the argument to enable the reader to judge what is correct. Newspapers and television channels were rich enough to finance investigative journalism in uncovering the “truth”.

But with the arrival of digital information, these traditional channels lost advertising revenue to social media, so the quality of journalism deteriorated, and in order to attract attention, newspaper and television content became more and more sensational, as well as more biased to one side.

The battle over readership also affected social media, where the value (advertising revenue) of the media outlets depends on their ability to attract viewers and readers.

How important is fake news? When you click “fake news” in Google search, you get 1.48 billion results, versus 380 million for “Jesus Christ”. Trump gets 2 billion, which goes to show how successful he is in social media.

Is fake news damaging and should it be regulated?

Canadian think-tank Centre for International Governance and Innovation (CIGI) conducted an online survey in 25 countries on Internet Security and Trust and found that Facebook was the most commonly cited source of fake news, with 77% of Facebook users saying they had personally seen fake news there, followed by 62% of Twitter users and 74% of social media users in general.

The vast majority think that fake news is made worse by the Internet, with negative impact on their economy and worsened polarisation of views.

Significantly, one-third (35%) pointed to the United States as the country most responsible for the disruptive effect of fake news in their country, trailed significantly by Russia (12%) and China (9%).

There are clearly lots of bad online trolls & social media platforms who act to spread fake news, but it is very difficult to agree on who should regulate fake news and decide what is fake or not. Some people believe in self-policing by the social media platforms, but others want governments to be involved, but are also wary of censorship.

My own view is the apparently spontaneous protests in Hong Kong, Barcelona, Santiago, France, Indonesia and in the Middle East are clearly associated with the rapid spread of social media, including the tools to protest, organise and riot.

What is particularly disturbing is the huge divide of opinions, including violent action to stop the other party from presenting their points of view.

The opposing view is often labelled fake news with even the courts being questioned if they rule against the prevalent views.

Is free speech turbo-charged by social media promoting hate and divisions that increasingly verge on violence and social breakdown?

Australian philosopher Tim Dean has recently questioned whether free speech has failed us?

As he rightly points out, “Free speech is not an absolute good; it is not an end unto itself. Free speech is an instrumental good, one that promotes a higher good: seeking the truth.”

The real problem is that if we do not have facts, we cannot have rational debate on what is truth.

The rule of law works on the principle that if there is dispute in society, it is resolved civilly either through the courts or through the political process. But once violence is involved, the rule of law breaks down.

As Professor Dean says, “free speech only fulfils its truth-seeking function when all agents are speaking in good faith: when they all agree that the truth is the goal of the conversation, that the facts matter, that there are certain standards of evidence and argumentation that are admissible, that speakers have a duty to be open to criticism.”

If however, one side blocks out the opposing view through intimidation, insults, threats, violent action and the wilful spread of misinformation, then civil discourse disappears, as does the rule of law.

This is clearly the age not of information but of anger. As a result of financial capitalism, huge inequalities have been allowed to fester, breaking down rational discourse, engendering distrust of the establishment and old order, and pushing hate and divisions.

Should we allow social media to turbo-charge this process, not of healing but polarisation?

Singapore takes step to regulate fake news

The Singaporean government has taken the bold step of regulating fake news through the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma), which came into effect this month. Under the act, the Singapore government can take action on false information on the Internet, either ordering that it be taken down, corrected or order technology companies to block accounts that are spreading untruths.

A wise friend told me that we are actually living in a fractured generational divide. The old wants to maintain the old order of stability. The young thinks that this is rigged against them and want to change the system that they will inherit. But something is seriously wrong when school children think that it is right to throw petrol bombs and that it is cool to beat up policemen and anyone that they think stand in their way.

For even reputable channels such as the BBC to start glorifying such action, one wonders whether fake news has truly won.

Andrew Sheng for Asia News Network

Source link


Related post:

'We lied, we cheated, we stole', ‘the Glory of American experiment’ by US Secretary of State/Ex-CIA director Mike Pompeo

https://youtu.be/DPt-zXn05ac